Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

56 Views

This week’s Leftist Lexicon entry is a first for me. In the past, I’ve covered (and recovered) words and phrases the Left have used in varying contexts and tried to explain what they mean to the rest of us. Today, I’m going to invent a word for the Leftist Lexicon that they haven’t used yet, but most certainly applies to them. Hopefully this doesn’t lead to a mass exodus from the site, but if it does, I hereby blame the Russians because…reasons.

So, here we go!

impeachment word salad

What the Left thinks it means – Ummmm…I dunno?

What it really means – a phrase that explains the Left’s impeachment efforts against Donald Trump

Remember back in 2009 when the Left got their collectivist panties in a wad over Republicans and conservatives trying to undermine President Barack Obama’s agenda? It seems like a decade ago, mainly because it was. However, one thing the Republicans didn’t try to do is impeach President Obama for crimes he committed or were a party to (much to the chagrin of your humble correspondent because there was fertile ground to make a case or, say, 50). When Donald Trump became President, though, Leftists wanted to impeach him from Day One, oddly enough for crimes he allegedly committed before becoming President.

Yes, it’s just that stupid.

Today, though, the Left has been making all sorts of allegations for presumed crimes committed before and during Trump’s Presidency. In the process, they’ve tied a number of terms to their impeachment efforts: collusion, extortion, bribery, election tampering, and so on. And as each new word gets attached, the previous words either lose their meaning or get ignored once they’ve served the Left’s purposes. In turn, this makes the people outside of Leftist Fantasyland either utterly confused due to the shifting narrative or utterly disgusted by the Left’s antics.

Guess which camp I’m in.

The Left loves to use buzzwords they test and test to ensure their impact on the people they consider uninformed or easily-led (i.e. the non-Leftists). Most of the time, it works. Words like homophobia, transphobia, and safe spaces have become part of our lexicon (and part of the Leftist Lexicon, too), but with impeachment, these words aren’t making any sense. Hence, the “word salad” portion of today’s Leftist Lexicon entry. For the uninitiated, a word salad is when people string together words that aren’t connected by any logical and consistent thought and that the people using them may or may not know the definitions of when they use them. Kinda like…well, the current impeachment effort. Fortunately, the Left has adopted the idea that it’s better to be emotionally right than factually right, according to their Matron Saint Alexandria of New York.

The problem is words mean things, as Rush Limbaugh has pointed out several times. And when dealing with legal terms, those definitions have implications above and beyond being used towards a political end. In building their impeachment case, the Left has created a multitude of problems with their impeachment word salad. Take extortion, for example. That is a serious charge, and the Left’s definition of it in this case has removed the notion of the victim knowing he or she is being extorted for it to be a crime. And remember, kids, the alleged victim in this case is a grown man who just happens to be the President of the Ukraine. You know, the guy whose statements about the alleged extortion all but destroy the very reason the Left is trying to impeach President Trump? But we should totally believe the Left is above board on this.

And here’s the best part. The reason the Left has been using so many different terms (by their own admission, I might add) is because they don’t think we understand complex concepts like quid pro quo and need it spelled out in explicit detail for us to get it. They want us to believe them while they hold us in contempt for what they perceive to be our intellectual shortcomings. Of course, there’s no way insulting potential supporters can go wrong, right? After all, that’s the strategy that made Hillary Clinton Presi…oh, sorry. Sort of a sore spot for the Left still. My bad!

Here’s a pro tip for the Left from your buddy Thomas. We get it. You don’t like President Trump and want the 2016 Election overturned because you feel it was Hillary’s turn. But you can’t impeach a President for hurting your fee-fees, no matter how hard you try or wish for it. You’re doing what your pals in the manmade climate change camp have done for decades: start with your desired conclusion and work backwards. It doesn’t work that way, and using loaded terminology with actual legal definitions and punishments won’t make your impeachment word salad any more intelligible or defensible before the US Senate, where your chances of getting Trump impeached are less likely than Pauly Shore winning a Best Actor Oscar. A Razzie, sure, but not an Oscar.

Here’s what I think you need to do. Just admit you have nothing, cut your losses, and try to find a non-insane Presidential candidate to beat President Trump in 2020. By the looks of the current clown car, though, I think you’re already at the point of no return on all those fronts. Better luck next time!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

76 Views

For the past several weeks, Washington and the media have been obsessed with whistleblowers (except for Bill Clinton, who has been obsessed with a different kind of whistleblowing, if you know what I mean). As the Left continues its push to impeach President Donald Trump for…I’m not honestly sure and I’ve been following it as closely as I can…well, anyway, the Left has used the testimony of a whistleblower to make the case in favor of President Trump’s impeachment, while the Right is saying the whistleblower is actually a leaker and, thus, doesn’t qualify as a whistleblower and doesn’t deserve the protections legally afforded one.

As you might expect, the fault lines on this subject are wider than Rosie O’Donnell’s waist size, and no one seems to want to figure out the basics before rendering a decision. In the war between the Orange Man Bad Tribe and the Orange Man Good Tribe, one thing is certain: we’re no closer to figuring out the truth.

So, here’s my contribution to the discussion. I know as much as the bozos in Congress, so I’m at least as underqualified as they are, but I’ll try to make it entertaining without spending taxpayer dollars.

whistleblower

What the Left thinks it means – a brave individual risking life and limb to uphold the rule of law, the Constitution, and other important concepts

What it really means – someone with a lot to lose, and even more to lose if he or she goes to bat for the Left

In our nation’s history, we’ve had examples of people who come forward with vital information and do so at great risk to themselves and their families. Because this role is so important to watching the watchmen, we have codified protections for these individuals to protect them and encourage others with similar information to come out of hiding and tell their stories without fear. For this reason, we have to be very serious about who is protected under whistleblower laws.

Unfortunately, we aren’t a serious country anymore. The very act of being a whistleblower has become politicized to the point of absurdity, especially in an age where a private citizen got doxed by CNN for reposting a pro-Trump GIF slamming CNN. And the same people trying to protect the anonymity of the current whistleblower flavor of the month were okay with CNN’s efforts to expose the evil pro-Trump memer.

Whether the current Trump whistleblower is actually a whistleblower is still a matter of debate. From where I sit, I’m not sure he…or she…is one. A large part of my uncertainty comes from the nature of the circumstances the he or she is in, which has everything to do with a phone call between the President and the President of Ukraine where it’s alleged our President withheld aid unless Ukraine investigated Hunter Biden and his father Joe. Whether this happened is as hotly debated as the whole whistleblower idea. Based upon what I’ve read and heard, the Ukrainian President said there was no quid pro quo. But, of course, we can’t trust him because he’s…a Russian! Dun Dun Dunnnnnnnnnn!

Seriously, the Left doesn’t want to admit what the Ukrainian President said has a ring of truth to it because it ruins the narrative they’ve set up and it undermines the current impeachment effort by providing a plausible alternative to the narrative. Once you give credence to the alternative, the original talking points can’t survive in the self-created vacuum, and the Left loses control of the message.

Also, consider the layers between the whistleblower and the source material. For me, a major key to being a whistleblower involves proximity to the target. An employee of a major corporation poisoning nearby waterways is a first-hand observer of what is happening. If what I’ve read is true, the whistleblower in the current Trump inquiry is, at best, second or third hand. The further away from the target you get, the less danger you are likely to incur.

Ah, but remember, Washington isn’t serious anymore. President Trump hasn’t helped matters any with his calls for the whistleblower to come forward by suggesting people find out who he or she is. Nothing says “I’m not out to expose you” like telling people to expose you. And the Left has run with this idea to build up the whistleblower narrative they hope to get people to believe. There are times when the President is his own worst enemy, and this was certainly one of those times.

The funny thing that no one else seems to be talking about is the Information Age may render whistleblowers protections irrelevant because of the amount of information that’s already out there. All it takes is a group of people with time on their hands and an attention to detail to track down anyone. Just like CNN, but with better ratings and no Jim Acosta. Turns out we might already know the whistleblower’s identity without it ever being released by the press or Congress. Oops.

If someone wants to find you, they can, thanks to our growing obsession with technology and our lessening acknowledgement of personal freedoms. Who cares if the government can turn on our cell phone cameras remotely? We gotta have that new iPhone! Big Brother is a quaint notion compared to the current state of technology and surveillance, but we’re too busy taking selfies to worry about it.

Before we close up shop on this post, let’s remember the Left hasn’t always loved whistleblowers. Julian Assange, Bradley/Chelsea Manning, and Reality Winner are some of the unfortunate victims of the Left’s fair-weather friendship with whistleblowers, even when their actions directly benefitted the Left! The Right isn’t much better, with their opinion on whistleblowers changing between hanging them or putting them before a firing squad. But nothing shows the utter contempt for the entire concept and the people who risk their lives to shine a light into the darkest corners of the halls of power than the Left pretending they give one-millionth of one fuck about them. A whistleblower to them is an acceptable loss in an ideological war they have to win to justify their existence.

Makes you want to keep your mouths shut, doesn’t it?

The Right to Remain Equal…ly Miserable

67 Views

In case you missed it, scientists have finally figured out what will stop global climate change, and it was right in front of us the whole time. Brace yourselves, because this is a major scientific breakthrough that will help generations to come. To fight global climate change, we need…equality.

Are you as shocked as I am? Of course, by “shocked” I mean “absolutely gobsmacked at the insanity.”

If you’ve read my previous posts on this subject, you know I’m a skeptical about the whole global climate change thing because the real science doesn’t back up the ohmygoddesswearegonnadie rhetoric. To be fair, though, the people who have pushed the latter narrative have only been wrong for the past, oh, 50 years, so maybe we need to give them a chance.

Then, they came out with this equality-as-a-climate-change-solution idea. At this point, they’ve burnt their last chance with me. Anyone who still blindly follows these nozzleheads will get mocked into the Stone Age.

Which is exactly where the eco-Left wants to take us. These folks tell us just about everything from eating meat to wearing clothes contributes to our carbon footprint, so it stands to reason they want us to devolve. Not them, of course. Just us. You see, the eco-Left is soooooo smart that they don’t need to follow the dictates they demand others follow. They’re the “Party of Science,” after all!

So, what does science have to do with equality? About as much as the eco-Left does with either.

Equality isn’t a term that appears in the hard sciences, but occurs more frequently in the social sciences because it’s more of a social concept. Also complicating matters is the fact equality is subjective. Let’s not forget people in this country believe white men have more privilege than anyone else, all while ignoring the advantages given to minorities (and majorities, in the case of women) over white men because of the assumption of privilege. Okay, I’m going to have to sit down for a bit after writing that last sentence. It was a real mind-bender to write.

Okay, I’m back. The point I’m trying to make here is the Left is now using social science to solve what they’ve maintained to date is a hard science problem. Although this may sound plausible on the surface because they’re both scientific disciplines, it’s hard to see how it would work in practice. If I drive a diesel fuel guzzling semi truck 6 days a week, but pay my wife the same amount of money for taking care of the books that I make driving, my carbon footprint doesn’t change, the rate and intensity of climate change isn’t impacted, and the problem equality was supposed to fix remains. No matter how many times this is repeated, the result is the same: nothing concrete gets accomplished. You may feel better about it, but the status quo will be maintained.

What’s the next step? Make things more equal? Give more to those perceived as having less?

Actually, that last one is the ultimate goal of the eco-Left. Hidden within any of their solutions to climate change is an economic component where the rich are expected to take on the lion’s share of the efforts to fix climate problems, whether it be through higher tax rates or out and out wealth confiscation. Why else do you think the eco-Left thinks America should be the one to change its economic system to combat a problem we’re already leading the world in addressing while other countries with less vibrant economies are allow to continue polluting without so much as a sideways glance from the eco-Left? They would rather make everyone equally miserable in the name of trying to control nature than to let anyone try to better themselves and succeed.

At the core of the “equality as climate change solution” notion is an emotional argument using “science” as a strengthening agent. By clinging to an idea Americans in particular hold dear (equality) and connecting it to an idea they’ve been trying to get off the ground for generations (manmade climate change), the eco-Left are hoping you overlook the inherent flaws in the argument and just submit. It’s the same play they’ve been running since the 90s, and they always seem to find new suckers to join their ranks using it.

The thing is scientists can be wrong and/or dishonest. Case in point: most of the scientists and non-scientists peddling the manmade climate change canard. Think about it for a moment. Out of all the dire predictions the eco-Left made, none have happened. And they know it. That’s one reason why they cook their own books, so to speak, to make it seem like they’ve been right all along. Just look at the lengths manmade global climate change guru Dr. Michael Mann have taken to avoid letting others scrutinize his work, even when ordered by a court to allow it. This begs the question of why. If climate change is real, dangerous, and occurring as we speak, the facts should back it up.

Spoiler Alert: They don’t.

And the eco-Left is scared people will find out.

Spoiler Alert: We know, which is why we doubt you.

And now with the new “solution” of equality, we have even more reason to doubt you. Oh, and laugh at you derisively.

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

80 Views

I may be understating this just a bit, but we are living in weird times. Young people needing “safe spaces” so they don’t feel harmed by words or ideas. Politicians and the media trying to get people to believe someone who put up topless and nude photos of herself on a swingers website is a victim of “revenge porn.” A blogger who puts things in quotation marks more frequently than Nancy Pelosi takes Yaeger shots during the work week.

Then, there’s the story of 7 year old James Younger, a boy in the middle of a legal and social struggle involving transgender rights. James’ mother wanted to give him drugs that would delay his biological maturity as a means to have him transition into being female. His father, on the other hand, objected to it for various reasons. Due to a recent court decision, James will not have to take the drugs his mother wants him to take.

There is a lot of discussion around the subject of transitioning, so who better to discuss it than your humble correspondent? Seriously, I’d like to know. Nobody? Okay, I’ll give it a shot.

transitioning

What the Left thinks it means – the process of changing one’s gender identity through medical and social means

What it really means – a major life decision that may not be taken as seriously as it should be

This is a subject that hits close to home for me because I have family members and friends who are either transitioning, have transitioned, or have people in their lives who are. The process itself can be painful, physically, mentally, and emotionally, and once you go down that road, there aren’t many offramps if you change your mind. It takes a strong resolve to complete the transition from male to female and vice versa, which means such an endeavor must be carefully considered at each step to make sure the person who will be living with the outcome is comfortable and determined to see it through.

That’s one reason the James Younger situation is so disturbing to me. Both parents have a say in this decision, and both have particular axes to grind with the other. The mother says James has gender dysphoria, a condition where a person believes he or she was born with the incorrect gender. The father says the mother is forcing James to dress and act like a girl to get affection from her. At this point, we can’t trust either side completely because we don’t know what is factual and what isn’t.

That leaves James, who regardless of whether you believe the mother or the father, is still 7 years old. Knowing what we know from science, girls mature faster than boys, and if I remember the studies correctly, neither one of them are fully mature in the single digits. That makes the decision to transition a lot harder to justify in my eyes because the person most affected by the transition isn’t mature enough to make that decision.

And before any Leftists jump down my throat accusing me of transphobia, let me point out there is precedent on my side in the form of age of consent laws. These laws were put in place because of the very immaturity of children I just mentioned. Although what is happening to James right now isn’t the same thing as an adult wanting to play Hide the Salami with an underage boy or girl, the principle is the same. And let’s not overlook the science here, “Party of Science.” Science isn’t a Chinese restaurant menu where you can pick a principle from Column A and another from Column B. You either accept what science says even if it goes against your political aims or you don’t.

Now for the coup de grace: there are a lot of trans people out there who think 7 is a tad young to be transitioning. Yes, I know this is an appeal to popularity, but it’s still something to consider. When people who may feel inclined to lean Left tell you it’s messed up, it’s probably more messed up than a Gary Busey/Charlie Sheen coke bender. And as someone outside of the Leftist bubble, let me confirm it looks messed up to most of the rest of the people out there.

Even though I have strong opinions on the subject of transitioning and when it should be considered, my opinions don’t mean much. I am just an outsider, so you can take my comments with a grain of salt, or even a pillar of salt if you prefer. But I will say this. If you believe James Younger is mature enough to make such an important decision to transition, then he is mature enough to make an informed decision, not just the decision you may want him to make.

And therein lies the problem. Many young people who attempt to transition or completely transition regret their decision later in life, some to the point of committing suicide. No matter how much the Left and the media try to make children transitioning or being transgender into a positive, the negative is too important to ignore. It’s neither fun, nor brave, and not every child who transitions will be lavished with praise and attention. After the novelty wears off, the children will be ignored while their lives are left in chaos.

But hey, what’s a little child abuse among trans fans? Amirite?

This may seem like a bit of a stretch, but it was the only thing that comes to mind when thinking about the James Younger case, and I’m talking to both sides here. There don’t seem to be any white hats here, just various shades of gray. You can chalk it up to life not being black and white, but I chalk it up to not wanting to be called a bigot in today’s society by opposing an idea that makes no sense whatsoever. James is a child. As a result, he is in no position to make a life-changing, and in many cases a life-ending, decision, and his parents aren’t helping the matter any by putting pressure on him one way or the other. If he wants to transition in, say, 10 years from now, then let him. Until then, let him be the child he is, not the tiny adult you think he is.

To the young adults and adults who are considering transitioning, I have one request: look at the decision carefully and with as much information and self-reflection necessary for you to make a definitive stance. If you have any qualms, don’t do it until they’re addressed to your satisfaction. And if/when you transition, know that I will treat you like a person, not as a label.

Unless you’re an asshole. Then all bets are off. 

Katie’s Got Some ‘Splainin’ to Do…

81 Views

It’s official. Rep. Katie Hill resigned from Congress today, but not before she voted in favor of moving forward with an impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump and giving a passionate speech where she blamed a litany of targets for her resignation. Misogyny, men being afraid of strong women in power, double standards, the right wing media, and so on apparently made her violate House ethics rules against having sex with subordinates while in office. News to me.

In the wake of this story (that I fully admit spending too much time thinking about), there are some questions I have, and since Ms. Hill has some time on her hands now, maybe she can see fit to answer some of them, but if not, here are my thoughts on the matters at hand.

Was what happened to you “revenge porn”?

This question is at the heart of the controversy, but too many people have already decided it was. Under both California and District of Columbia law, “revenge porn” is illegal and comes with some pretty stiff penalties, if you’ll pardon the expression.

On the surface, it looks like Rep. Hill was the victim, but in order to verify this we have to dig a bit deeper. The idea being anti-revenge porn laws is to protect victims from the actions of spiteful and vindictive exes. This begs the question of whether Hill’s ex-husband fits that description. So far, I don’t think we’ve heard from him, but we’ve certainly heard from Rep. Hill, who has described him thusly. It’s entirely possible he’s a scumbag, but without further information we can’t rule out he’s innocent, or at least not as guilty as some would have us believe.

There is also information out there that suggests her ex-husband posted the photos in question when they were together for the purposes of having a threesome or getting into a throuple (which is a couple with a +1 with benefits). If the photos were posted with her permission, there is no revenge porn, just incredibly bad judgment in the Internet Age. If the photos were posted without her permission, that’s an issue, but it doesn’t necessarily mean he’s guilty of revenge porn. The timeline doesn’t match up. And speaking of timelines…

Why would these photos be published now?

As with any scandal like this, putting together a timeline is essential to understanding the ins and outs of the scandal itself. One question that comes to mind is why now. Rep. Hill already won her seat, and her District doesn’t appear to be that much of a Republican hotbed. A vindictive husband? Possible, but without more info, we can’t be sure. To derail President Trump’s impeachment? Unlikely, given Democrats control the House of Representatives and losing one vote wouldn’t impact the outcome to any extent. Right wing smearmongers out to destroy her? Don’t take this the wrong way, but we wouldn’t have known about you if the pictures hadn’t come out. Powerful men afraid of women in power? It was 11 years ago that these same powerful men voted to put Sarah Palin in the #2 spot of the Presidential hierarchy, and more recently have voted in women like Mia Love, Liz Cheney, and Joni Ernst.

The more we unpeel this political onion, the fewer answers remain that make sense. We either need more hard evidence or a reasonable explanation, and I doubt we’ll get either anytime soon.

Why did you take the actions you did at the time and are taking the actions you are now?

The former has been answered somewhat. Rep. Hill has admitted she made errors in judgment (ya think?), but it doesn’t quite explain everything, given what she’s said and done since the photos came out. There has to be something else there because it might explain the current situation better. Would Rep. Hill have constructed a narrative if it were as simple as “revenge porn”? I wouldn’t think so. The first logical step would have been to contact the police and file a report, not to pretend it didn’t happen only the change your mind once more photos went public. And contacting a lawyer to pursue legal actions doesn’t act as a substitute for getting the police involved.

This sounds a lot like other people’s victim narratives that aren’t borne out with any actions in response to the alleged crimes perpetrated against them. That leads to people not trusting alleged victims when they come forward, which is a common thread in feminist arguments about why women don’t report rapes. And it opens up scrutiny of the accusers.

I know the sexual side of this is personal, but in order to come to a conclusion, we may need to understand more of the past. Saying “oops, I screwed up” (again, if you’ll pardon the pun) doesn’t cut it.

Are the Daily Caller and Daily Mail guilty of distributing the photos, thus participating in the revenge porn?

This one is a bit tricky. Of the two, I would say the Daily Caller’s use of a limited number of photos was done not out of malice, but to bolster the story they found. Even if the photos found online were posted without her permission, we have to ask whether they had a prurient interest in posting them for the purpose of sexual or political gratification. Given what they used, I don’t think a good argument can be made that they posted it with malicious intent. Thus, I don’t think you’d prevail.

The Daily Mail, on the other hand, might have more of a legal headache coming their way. They posted several more photos of Rep. Hill, well beyond the ones the Daily Caller used, and didn’t really add to the story itself beyond more photos. By going to an extreme like they did, a case can be made their decision to run the additional photos would constitute a prurient interest and, thus, open themselves up to legal consequences. The problem then becomes whether England has similar “revenge porn” laws on their books or if the legal principles on our books would transcend a lack of similar laws.

Is there a double standard between men and women in power?

The short answer to this is no. The longer answer is still no, but it’s longer. (I gotta stop using these double entendres!)

Seriously, there isn’t a double standard between men and women in power, even though men are usually the ones getting caught being horndogs more than women. However, there is a double standard between Democrats and Republicans. Bill Clinton had a number of women accuse him of sexual harassment and assault, but he’s believed and still beloved in Leftist circles. Donald Trump is in a similar boat, but he’s hated by the same people who give Clinton a pass. I’m not saying Trump should skate, but I do see the standards shift whenever there is a Democrat in trouble versus a Republican in trouble. What you’re experiencing is what men like Al Franken, Mark Sanford, and plenty of others have dealt with before you thanks to the rules your ideological allies have set up. Congrats!

Who benefits?

This is a key question to understanding motive. Who would gain the most by having you resign? Republicans, a jealous ex-husband, Nancy Pelosi, possibly even members of your own party come immediately to mind. In politics, you make a lot of enemies, and some of the people who consider friends may be looking to stab you in the back at the first opportunity. In the current environment where Leftists are trying to hold President Trump to a certain standard, your actions certainly undercut that effort or at least make it look more like a political hitjob than a consistent standard. But one thing is clear: as a freshman Representative, you are expendable. Think about that, won’t you?

Why should we believe you?

And now we come to the Big Kahuna of questions. And let me tell you, Rep. Hill, this is not going to be easy to answer. With what I’ve seen and heard so far, your story has more holes in it than a wheel of Swiss cheese in the middle of a gang shootout. The actions you’ve taken (or not taken, as the case may be) and the statements you’ve made (and not made, as the case may be) do not inspire a lot of confidence in your truthfulness. You may have Leftists believing you, but these same folks believed Christine Blasey Ford in spite of a lack of specifics and an abundance of questionable arguments. If you want to be believed, give us something to believe in that makes sense.

And take responsibility for the mistakes you’ve made. Blaming a double standard or misogyny for your ethical lapses doesn’t fly with most of us. Man…err…Woman up.

The Hills Are Alive With the Sound of Outrage

70 Views

No matter how bad a week you think you’ve had, it pales in comparison to former Representative Katie Hill of California. Last week the Daily Caller revealed Ms. Hill was intimately involved with both male and female staffers, complete with nude photographs and salacious text messages, all of which Rep. Hill tried to deny. Eventually, though, she resigned her seat and released a statement accusing her ex-husband of “revenge porn,” which is when a former partner releases provocative photos of a subject with whom the partner was intimate out of spite. That’s a part of the story that the Left is running with, but it’s not the whole story.

To me, there are two parts to the Katie Hill situation: the sexual relationships themselves, and the ethical and national security concerns these relationships raise. In both cases, there are people trying to convince you of the importance of one over the other when both are important and have long-reaching impact on this country unless we take a serious approach.

Unfortunately, that blogger is on vacation, so you’re stuck with me on this one.

Let’s talk about the sexual relationships first. As scandalous and fun as it is to talk about Rep. Hill being a switch hitter, so to speak, it’s not that big of a deal in and of itself. Moralists will wag their fingers, but at the end of the day, it was at least 3 adults engaged in an activity that last time I checked was still legal. And that’s why the Left is pushing so hard to underscore the sexual elements of this matter. Well, that, and they’re freaks.

Leftists have an unnatural attachment to sexual matters and tend to take the extreme libertarian/classical liberal stance on them. But being big government types, they can’t completely do away with government’s hand on the scale. As long as the government can take a buck out of an activity, they’re all in for letting your freak flag fly. The minute government doesn’t have control over a transaction, as in prostitution, that freak flag gets lowered faster than Bill Clinton’s pants at the Moonlight Bunny Ranch.

Personally, I could care less with who Rep. Hill slept or sleeps with because it’s none of my business. And to their credit, many on the Right agree. Where the line gets a little murky is when it comes to the ethical and national security implications, and that’s where the Right tends to be hammering the hardest. These are not small concerns, I grant you, but they may be exaggerated a bit for partisan reasons.

The intelligence community has a number of ways to obtain information, including seduction. If a foreign agent wanted to get sensitive information, all he or she would need to do is find a weak spot and exploit it. With Rep. Hill, that weak spot is doubled because she is an open bisexual. Whether it’s something as mundane as the combination to Nancy Pelosi’s liquor cabinet or something as damaging as intelligence briefings, we cannot brush off what Rep. Hill did as “none of our business.”

Having said all of that, I think we need to be very careful about labeling Rep. Hill as a national security threat at this time because we don’t know all the particulars yet. Did she sleep with a foreign agent? We don’t know. Has she given away secrets to a hostile power? We don’t know. It’s red meat for the Right, but it’s based on a lot of unknowns, and that opens up a whole new series of questions and questionable actions that would further pry into a private matter beyond our need to know.

That leaves the ethical part of the equation, and we have the Left to thank for that. For decades, the Left have been pushing the idea of what constitutes sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior between superiors and subordinates. In short, there can never be sexual consent between a superior and a subordinate due to the former having power over the latter. For the most part, Republicans have been the ones getting caught, but this time it’s a Democrat who’s having to live by the rules the Left set. And the Left is completely overlooking this because Rep. Hill is a Democrat.

However, that doesn’t remove the ethical implications. With all of the talk of a quid pro quo with President Donald Trump and the Ukraine, you would think the Left would be able to put 2 and 2 together as it pertains to Rep. Hill, but then again maybe they already have, which is why they’re focusing on the sexual portion of the situation instead of the ethical part. In either case, from what we’ve seen so far, Rep. Hill rewarded her sexual partners with paying jobs, which really seems to your humble reporter as a quid pro quo or at the very least a shady transaction of convenience. And when your party is obsessed with holding the President to a standard, it’s kind of hard to turn a blind eye to one of your own violating the same standard.

Thus, Katie Hill is screwed, literally and figuratively. Since she resigned, she’s been beating the drum of being a victim (surprise surprise) of revenge porn, but that’s not why she’s being targeted. She made some really dumb decisions with implications far beyond the bedroom, and those decisions call into question her fitness for office. The sexual angle isn’t even on my radar, and the national security angle is possible, but not as developed as the ethical concerns her actions have raised. Although it’s a little sad to see how Rep. Hill’s Congressional career ended (at least for now), it ended because of self-inflicted wounds, not because of a bitter ex-husband or a bunch of right wingers or even the Daily Caller.

But I guess claiming revenge porn is sexier than acknowledging a mistake.

No Party for an Old Man

90 Views

As the 2020 Presidential election crawls towards the Iowa Caucuses, I’ve been watching various candidates on both sides of the aisle looking for one I could support without reservation and…I’m coming up empty. Don’t get me wrong. There are candidates I’m paying attention to, but too few of them actually have enough of what I’m looking for to earn my vote.

Since 2008, I’ve made it a point to vote for a person instead of a party because the latter leads to the kind of political gang warfare that make the Crips and the Bloods look like a Mennonite church picnic. I’m to a point where I don’t particularly care for Democrats or Republicans because they’re both out to screw us, just with different means and different colored ties. These days picking a candidate from both major parties is like determining what kind of shit sandwich you want.

Having said that, I have been paying attention to Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Buttigieg, and Marianne Williamson for the same reason: they are running mostly positive campaigns. They may call out the other candidates’ positions from time to time (Kamala Harris still has marks from when Ms. Gabbard pimp-slapped her at a debate a few months ago) and call out President Donald Trump’s positions, but they’re running mostly on a positive message. The other candidates in the Democrat Clown Car are too busy repeating the same lines, using the same tired campaign tricks, and comparing themselves to Trump to bother with articulating what their positive vision of the country under their presumed leadership would be. And, no, Senator Elizabeth Warren, saying “I have a plan for that” doesn’t count as actually having a vision.

On the Republican side, there’s President Trump and…a couple of other guys who are running unintentional stealth campaigns. At this point, I’m wondering whether the Republicans challenging Trump are in the federal Witness Relocation Program living under assumed names. Also, there are other potential candidates speaking in hushed tones about challenging the President because…they think he’s an embarrassment to the country and the GOP. In other words, they’re Republicans running on the same platform as the majority of Democrat Presidential candidates.

And that’s where I get off this roller coaster. Running for President because you don’t like the guy currently in the position isn’t enough for me anymore. Yes, I know if we elect a Democrat bad things are going to happen in the judiciary system, but given some of the court rulings I’ve seen recently, I’m not sure electing a Democrat will improve the situation any. Ditto with keeping a Republican in the White House. At this point, I’m looking for a candidate who can articulate a vision for America post-Trump and come up with some actual ideas that I can support. And, if you really want to wow me, be civil about it. I get called a Never Trumper by Trump fans because I don’t think everything he does is amazing, and I get called all sorts of other names from the other side of the aisle because I’m an aging white man who doesn’t think the Left has any answers that don’t involve stupid ideas that haven’t ever worked or marching on Washington, DC, wearing a Halloween costume that would get you kicked out of most bars.

So, where do I go from here? Who can I trust to protect my interests? I’ve narrowed it down to two: God, and myself. And, trust me, I am waaaaaaay down the list from God. I’m at an age where I pretty much want to be left alone, and neither the Left nor the Right are willing to do that right now. Granted, the Right is less likely to be as invasive than a gynecologist moonlighting as a TSA agent, but they’re still okay with some personal intrusions when it suits their aims. And today’s Leftist is only one step removed from being Gladys Kravitz from “Bewitched” (and still six degrees away from Kevin Bacon).

Remember the shit sandwich I referenced earlier?

So, for the time being, I will remain unaffiliated because neither major party wants to build up this country. They would prefer to tear down the other side so they appear better by comparison. I will continue to look for good people who want to do good in the world, and if one doesn’t appear, I will vote my conscience…and vote for my dog.



Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

87 Views

In case you missed it (or, like me, you were glad to), we recently had another socially conscious holiday/occasion, this one called National Period Day. Already? And I still have up my National Pronoun Day decorations!

The cause behind National Period Day is to underscore how feminine products cost more than their male counterparts, an idea that’s been nicknamed the “pink tax.” Although this raises a lot of questions, like what happens if the products identify as male, it also shows how the Left can take a legitimate issue and turn it into a freak show Tod Browning would be proud of.

pink tax

What the Left thinks it means – additional costs passed on to female consumers solely because of their gender

What it really means – additional costs passed onto all consumers due to multiple economic factors completely unrelated to anyone’s gender

When it comes to economics, Leftists are masters at oversimplifying concepts and completely missing important details that would ultimately affect their positions. For example, the Left’s favorite trope is women make $0.78 for every dollar a male peer makes. As troubling and unfair as that sounds, it’s not completely accurate because the figure omits a lot of details, like paid time off and career/life choices. Once those factors are taken into consideration, in most cases the “wage gap” disappears or tips in favor of the people allegedly impacted by it.

The pink tax has the same basic problem. Yes, female products cost more and often have the same ingredients as male products, but there’s a big red…err pink flag. And this is going to come as a big surprise to the Left.

Women are different from men.

I know! It shocked me when I found out, too!

Because men and women are different, they will respond to different stimuli. Because of these differences, men and women will be attracted to different products for different reasons. A burly lumberjack type may be the man of many women’s dreams, but it won’t make them want to buy a certain brand of tampons. That means these different products have to be marketed differently, which in the corporate world means more money has to be spent on what are essentially the same products. As a result, the cost of doing business gets passed along to consumers.

Read that last sentence again. I said “consumers.” Not just women, not just men, consumers as a whole. You see, even though the products are marketed differently because of gender, the cost is still the same for those who buy them. I can’t go into a grocery store, buy a package of tampons for my wife, and get a “blue discount” because I’m a male. I may get funny looks from the other customers, but I attribute that to being a weirdo.

Although I’m poking fun at the absurdity of the “pink tax,” I have to admit the Left has a point. If the only difference between men’s and women’s deodorant is the scent, why not price them the same and eliminate the Left’s talking point? Not to mention, the first company to do this for any product men and women use will gain a major foothold in the market and earn corporate brownie points at the same time. Although I’m sure the price difference results in a tidy sum, sometimes you have to cut prices to gain volume, which has a funny way of making up for any lost profits from the price reduction. Yay capitalism!

Now, for the gender-specific items, that’s a little harder to equalize. Men don’t use tampons (yes, not even trans women), so you can’t use the same argument you can with deodorant. However, the same principle regarding buying said items applies. That “pink tax” hits men and women equally, but it’s easily fixed by both genders through doing one of the new great American pastimes: complaining. If you want to get a company to look into their practices quickly and effectively, use their social media to complain because that shit always has the potential to go global virally. If you doubt this, I have four words for you: Wendy’s Spicy Chicken Nuggets.

In the meantime, the “pink tax” should be exposed as the uninformed economic talking point it is. Companies don’t see blue and pink outside of their marketing departments. They prefer green, gold, and silver. (For you Leftists out there worried about the pink tax, I’m talking about money.) In order to affect positive change, you have to hit the companies’ bottom lines, not invent a crisis and turn it into a talking point for politicians. If you’re not willing to engage with the problem honestly, you can take your complaints and stuff them.

One more note. National Period Day? Just…ewwwww.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

127 Views

CNN has been having a bad week. Not only is it experiencing a ratings slump that puts the former cable news giant at the public access channel level, but it’s been the subject of a series of videos from the Left’s least favorite video producer, Project Veritas. Seems the Left doesn’t like it when James O’Keefe and his merry band of videographers expose their antics, almost as if the Left is doing something shady and dishonest…

And, as a result, Project Veritas is eeeeevilllllll!

Or are they? Let’s dig a little deeper, shall we?

Project Veritas

What the Left thinks it means – a group of dishonest right-wingers who selectively edit footage to make the Left look bad

What it really means – a group of people doing what the media used to do before they became Leftist lapdogs

Journalism has had its share of investigative reporters, raking through the muck to find the kernel of a story that would bring the powerful and corrupt to heel. Back in its heyday, “60 Minutes” did stunning exposes on dishonest brokers in the corporate sector. This style of “guerrilla journalism” made people like Mike Wallace feared in the deepest, darkest corners of companies because they never knew if or when they would be the next target and be caught on camera trying to defend the indefensible. “60 Minutes” gave rise to “Dateline NBC” and “20/20” and Geraldo Rivera, who took the practice to new heights, and lows as the reporters got disgraced or the companies started catching onto their shtick.

Then, something happened: journalism became PR for the Left. No longer would investigative reporters dig for sources to expose Left-leaning crooks and liars because it would hurt their careers behind the scenes. Just print what the nice DNC press release says, write a scathing piece about how evil Republicans are, and cash the checks. It was simple, albeit dishonest, work. Conservatives and independents, including your humble blogger, cited frequent examples of Leftist bias in media reporting, but these examples were brushed aside as paranoia, ignorance, or even denial of the “fact” the truth skews to the Left.

That changed when James O’Keefe decided to see what he could find behind the veneer of Leftist organizations, starting with ACORN. One series of videos later, and the Left was knocked back as one of its lesser-known branches got caught red-handed being dishonest and downright corrupt. Since then, O’Keefe started Project Veritas and released several other video series that have exposed Google, Facebook, and now CNN. Due to previous practices, critics have labeled the group as dishonest for “selectively editing” videos and engaging in dishonest tactics to try to gain visibility. Some have gone so far as to say they engage in disinformation.

To be fair, some of this criticism is valid, as they have made factual errors in their reporting and have skewed their stories to fit an agenda, namely making Leftists look like buffoons. Having said that, Project Veritas has done something their critics hate: they’ve posted raw, unedited footage of their encounters. In other words, they brought receipts, to use the slang the kids use today. Even so, Project Veritas has gained a reputation (in Leftist circles, at least) as slanted, dishonest brokers who seek to push an agenda in direct defiance of the truth.

So…they’re CNN?

The uproar over Project Veritas can be boiled down to the Left getting a taste of its own medicine, and it’s making them look like the underhanded scumbags they are. That hurts them politically, so they have to do everything possible to discredit Project Veritas, even if the information they’re putting out is inaccurate. Even the “selectively edited” line has been fact-checked into oblivion by Project Veritas putting out the unedited footage. Now, anyone can see the videos in full context.

The thing is the Left doesn’t want to do that because it ruins their narrative, and when it comes down to it, the narrative is all-powerful and must be protected. I’m talking Gollum-with-the-One-Ring-level of protection. As precioussss as that may be to the Left, it’s creepy to me, and it doesn’t square with the facts to anyone else who is paying attention. On the surface, it boggles the mind that an ideological group who insists the truth agrees with them would object to people outside of their group finding the truth for themselves. However, it’s not about the truth, and it never has been. It’s about control.

Like they do with the language, the Left loves to control what is considered to be the truth, and far too often Republicans and conservatives wind up being the victims of these efforts. With Project Veritas, the Left can’t control the narrative as easily on controversial topics, and that scares the Left. Now consider there are other groups starting to emulate what Project Veritas does and throwing open the curtains on what the Left is trying to hide. Just ask Planned Parenthood about how they pay for Lamborghinis.

Yet, as with all people seeking the truth, it’s ultimately up to us to determine their credibility. I would be doing you a disservice if I glossed over the times Project Veritas screwed up or got the facts wrong or tried to frame someone’s words a certain way. You must take the good with the bad and determine whether these folks can be trusted. By and large, I trust Project Veritas, but I always verify, as one of my heroes Ronald Reagan said. The Left doesn’t want you to do any of that. They want you to trust and believe, all to protect a narrative and their own political viability. Anyone who tells the truth will welcome the scrutiny, myself included.

The fact the Left is up in arms over Project Veritas tells you much more than they intend, and it’s not good.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

96 Views

As the impeachment kinda-sorta-but-not-really inquiry against President Donald Trump staggers along like Ted Kennedy after a weekend at the Kennedy Compound, we’re starting to get a clearer idea of what exactly the President is accused of doing this time: obstruction of justice as it pertains to an investigation into a telephone call between the United States and Ukraine. To put it simply, the Trump White House has stated no one from the Administration should participate in the House inquiry due to how the investigation is being conducted.

This is one of those cases where both the Left and the Right have the wrong idea. So, in order to try to straighten out everyone involved, I’m devoting this week’s Lexicon to delving into obstruction of justice. Get your pens and notebooks ready, kids…

obstruction of justice

What the Left thinks it means – preventing Congress from investigating the President

What the Right thinks it means – a crime the President didn’t commit because there wasn’t a crime

What it really means – preventing law enforcement from investigating a crime

Our criminal justice system is based on the idea the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately, impeachment is more of a political animal than criminal justice is, so the rules get fuzzier than Nick Offerman in a lumberjack camp. In the political arena, you are guilty even if you are proven innocent in spite of a preponderance of the evidence. And impeachment is no different.

At the heart of the latest impeachment talk is obstruction of justice. This has legal implications, which in the political arena make it easier to make a case for impeachment but requires evidence. That’s where the Left and Right get it wrong. The Left says Trump preventing Administration officials hinders their investigation and, thus, preventing them from getting to the truth of the Ukraine phone call situation. (Which is to say, getting to anything that can be made into a major scandal.) The Right says there can be no obstruction of justice because there was no crime committed.

And people wonder why I take ibuprofen like Tic Tacs these days.

Here’s the deal: you can obstruct justice in absence of a crime, but there really isn’t a crime here, and the impeachment inquiry in its current form isn’t the place to make that determination.

Let’s take the first portion of that statement, well, first. If there is an investigation into an alleged crime, anything you do to obstruct that investigation is illegal. Even in jest. And, yes, even when there turns out to be no crime committed. The fact you hindered a law enforcement investigation is what will get you in trouble. Don’t wind up like Jussie Smollet, kids.

Now, for the inquiry not being the right venue to address allegations of obstruction of justice. First off, there are six House committees involved in the inquiry, five of which aren’t the Judiciary Committee. That means there are five more committees than necessary to investigate the alleged crime. That may be a Leslie Knope wet dream, but it’s wasteful and unnecessary, especially considering the amount of airtime Adam Schiff has gotten off this. And Schiff isn’t even on the House Judiciary Committee! Ironically, he’s the head of the House Intelligence Committee, but then again no one may be better qualified to reflect the intelligence of House Democrats than Schiff.

The other aspect of this that should trouble anybody with a lick of common sense is the fact this inquiry isn’t so much an inquiry as it is an inquisition. Since Democrats run the House, they write the rules, so they can set the parameters of any investigation or hearing. However, since we’re dealing with a specific illegal act, the rule of law should be followed. As it stands, it isn’t. When partisan politics gets involved, the only law that’s followed is the law of the jungle. That may make Leftists swoon in this case, but it comes with two major problems. First, it undermines the legal arguments being made in favor of President Trump’s impeachment. It’s hard to hang your hat on the rule of law when you’re not following it. And second, it sets a precedent. Remember when former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid went to a majority vote when it came to federal judge confirmations in the Senate? The Left cheered when he did it, but when current Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did it, they lost their shit. I guarantee if the House goes Republican under a Democrat President, there will be investigations galore, and it will have zero to do with the rule of law, and you won’t have a leg to stand on because you literally started it.

In the meantime, the question remains of whether President Trump obstructed justice. Based on what we’ve seen so far, it’s hard to say he did based on the Left’s reactions when he complies with their requests/demands. It’s never good enough for the Left. If Trump released his tax returns, they would ask for some obscure IRS document that ultimately wouldn’t impact his returns, but would make it appear as though Trump was hiding something. Trump released a partial translation of his call with the Ukrainian leader which ultimately showed there was no illegal activity going on (unless you consider investigating Hunter Biden’s apparently shady dealings with the Ukraine while his dad was Vice President illegal). And who backed up Trump’s assessment of the call? The Ukraine.

At this point, it’s easier to pick out the number of “impeachable offenses” Trump hasn’t been accused of than it is to count the number of ones he has been accused of. The Left is using impeachment much like it used the IRS under President Barack Obama: a political tool to bludgeon their opponents while running interference on their own shady dealings. But as far as obstruction of justice is concerned, I honestly don’t see it, and I’m saying this as someone who isn’t a Trump supporter. It sounds ominous and gives red meat (or tofu for vegetarians and vegans) to a group of people already predisposed to hate President Trump to hate him even more and call for his impeachment, removal, imprisonment, and so on.

That’s really what this whole impeachment inquiry fiasco is about. After 2016, Leftists are scared Trump could win again, and given the clown car of candidates they have this time, they are right to be afraid. That’s no excuse for running roughshod over the rule of law, especially when it comes to the impact of impeachment. To put it simply, Leftists want Donald Trump impeached for corruption because he asked an ally to assist in the investigation of corruption that may have had an impact on the 2016 Presidential Election, which is legal to do in the first place given the fact we have an agreement with that ally to do just that. That’s not obstruction of justice; that’s preservation of justice, the same justice Leftists have been demanding since 2016 when they were concerned with foreign countries interfering with our elections. But apparently it’s only a problem when that interference is against the Left’s candidates.

Leftists need to get off this obstruction of justice kick and realize they’re barking up the wrong tree. And the Right need to stop with the stupid “it’s not obstruction if there’s no crime” bullshit because it’s legally and logically wrong.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I need some ibuprofen.